Whether or not to support the campaign by Yves Engler to become the leader of the New Democratic Party is, broadly speaking, a tactical matter from the standpoint of Marxists. It does, however, pose important political questions related to the struggle for Palestinian liberation and building a revolutionary party in Canada. Recent discussion of the campaign involving organizations and individuals identifying with the Trotskyist tradition have brought some of these questions to the fore.
Engler agreed to become the candidate for the NDP’s Socialist Caucus after being approached by Barry W. of Socialist Action (SA), a leading force in the Socialist Caucus. A relatively well-known radical journalist, author and activist, Engler is not a member of Socialist Action. It is unclear if he was a member of the Socialist Caucus or even of the NDP prior to the current campaign. Since agreeing to seek the leadership of the NDP, Montreal-based Engler has been assisted by various small far-left groupings who have helped shape his platform, including in Toronto from some of the far-left elements associated with the Labour May Day Committee and the Toronto Coalition Against NATO. We are members of neither grouping, though we attend every May Day rally and organized a united-front demo with the Toronto Coalition Against NATO to oppose the Ukraine war in October 2023 (see “The Main Enemy is at Home!,” 1917 No.48).
Not all elements of that Toronto milieu are on board with the Engler campaign. For instance, the Marxist Workers Group (MWG), an organization composed principally of former members of the forerunner to the Revolutionary Communist Party, is not supporting Engler’s campaign. On 14 August, Ben M. of the MWG posted on Facebook to explain why his group is not endorsing Engler (and to give some background to failed attempts to get Socialist Action to agree to a public debate on the question before the election). Comrade Ben’s original post sparked a heated discussion among several of the players involved in Engler’s campaign, and there are now well over 200 comments. One of the reasons given for rejecting critical support to Engler is that the latter has espoused views about the role and responsibility of Jews that are typically heard from antisemites.
Antisemitism & Anti-Zionism
On 25 August, the Engler campaign published “An Answer to the ‘Critics’” that noted that the “Yves Engler campaign remains steadfast in total opposition to all forms of bigotry and racism, including our vigilant opposition to antisemitism.” The statement complained:
“Unfortunately, a handful of leftists, most of whom are not NDP supporters, have made it their priority to attack the most articulate socialist to run for NDP leadership in generations. These ‘critics’, intentionally or otherwise, offer arguments that encourage party officials to disqualify Yves Engler, putting a damper on political dialogue. This constitutes a broad attack on workers’ democracy, both within and beyond the NDP.”
Engler refers to “allegations that wrench words out of context, that grossly exaggerate nuance written in private e-correspondence many years ago,” and argues that launching “a smear campaign against a prominent voice in the Palestine solidarity movement, employing bad-faith arguments contrived from years-old quotes, ripped out of context in order to advance a political agenda, is beyond disgusting.”
The suggestion that Engler, who is well-known as a leftist opponent of Zionism and Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians, might be antisemitic is not to be taken lightly—particularly as he is being promoted by organizations and individuals on the far left that have nothing to do with antisemitism. Spurious accusations of “antisemitism” have been weaponized by pro-Israel bullies to silence criticism from anti-Zionist activists. We have openly and on several occasions defended the targets of such Zionist smear campaigns, including Fred Hahn, Sarah Jama and Samidoun (see “Defend Samidoun!” 1917 No.49).
But whether or not Zionists routinely conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism (which they do) and whether or not the NDP leadership will gleefully use accusations of antisemitism against Engler (which they will) is secondary to the question of whether or not he is an antisemite (which he has firmly denied). The MWG’s Ben M. cited three pieces written by Engler as evidence. Given the gravity of the matter, it is worth reviewing them in detail.
The first piece is an article by Engler, posted to his website on 24 April 2025 and entitled “Canadian Jewry’s authoritarian turn” (the title was later amended to “Canada’s Jewish institutions take authoritarian turn”). The article notes that mainstream Jewish organizations and publications (such as the Canadian Jewish News) promote state repression against pro-Palestinian activists, including Engler himself. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the obvious fact that the official institutions of Canada’s Jewish community support Israeli crimes and seek to criminalize those who speak out against them. Doing so is, from our perspective, a necessary part of pushing class issues to the fore and breaking working-class Jews away from the nationalist poison of Zionism.
Yet the article goes beyond merely cataloguing the “authoritarian” pro-Israel stance of official Jewish institutions to suggesting that “the majority of Canadian Jews” are suspect. The argument is not explicitly spelled out, but its premises are all there. Engler cites the following evidence from within Israel:
“Supremacist, authoritarian, views predominate in Israel. Fascists are cabinet ministers and according to polls over 80% of Jewish Israelis support the Donald Trump/Benjamin Netanyahu plan to depopulate Gaza. Fourteen percent of Jewish Israelis consider the plan a ‘distraction’ and only 3% of Jewish Israelis said they were morally opposed to the forced removal of Arabs from Gaza (54% of Arab Israelis are morally opposed).”
Israel is a class-divided society whose bourgeoisie has quite effectively used Zionism (a particular form of nationalism) to chain Jewish workers to the capitalists that both exploit them and oppress the Palestinians. We do not assign personal responsibility for Israel’s crimes to the Jewish Israeli workers who have been hoodwinked by their Zionist rulers any more than we blame working-class Canadians who vote Liberal for the crimes of Canadian imperialism. It is worth pointing out that, according to the polls cited by Engler, only 54 percent of Arab Israelis are “morally opposed” to ethnically cleansing their fellow Palestinians from Gaza! If accurate, surely this speaks to the power of Zionist propaganda to fool people into going against their own material interests.
Why does Engler cite these opinion polls about Israeli Jewish public opinion in an article about Canadian Jewish organizations? Engler had begun the article with a handful of rhetorical questions:
“Do the majority of Canadian Jews approve of Donald Trump-like deportations and harassment of pro-Palestinian activists? Do most Canadian Jews want to defund universities that don’t repress students opposing genocide? Do the majority of Canadian Jews agree with mainstream, pro-Israel organizations as they become ever more brazenly authoritarian and threaten the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?”
Engler concludes by asserting: “Unless Jews speak up against the organizations claiming to represent them, Canadians will believe they support authoritarianism, including subverting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the name of supporting Israel.” In other words, he seems to suggest that “the majority of Canadian Jews” support repression against pro-Palestinian activists, and probably ethnic cleansing in Gaza as well (as the reference to the opinions of Israeli Jews implies). Whether they do or not is an empirical question, and Engler here cites no direct evidence for it. The most charitable interpretation of Engler’s challenge to Jewish Canadians is that he is trying to encourage fence-sitters to take a firm stance against Israeli atrocities. This is not a class-based approach to building socialist consciousness but a liberal moralist strategy that rests on the notion of collective responsibility. Indeed, Engler’s argument implies that “the majority of Canadian Jews” are responsible for the authoritarianism of official Jewish organizations (or worse).
The second article shared by Ben M. is also from Engler’s website (published on 27 May 2025 and entitled “Collective depravity of marching to support Israel’s ethnic cleansing”). It starts off by posing the question: “Should we be seeking to weaken Canada’s main Jewish organizations?” The answer, Engler writes, “is obvious.” (Yes.)
The article again points out popular support for genocide within Israel: “A recent poll by Pennsylvania University found that one in two (47%) of Israeli Jews want to see all non-Jews killed in Gaza. Additionally, four in five (82%) want to ethnically cleanse all non-Jews from the coastal strip.” This time Engler makes an explicit connection between Israeli and Canadian Jews. He notes: “United Jewish Appeal of Toronto brought out tens of thousands to ‘Walk for Israel’ as that country pursues its final solution in Gaza,” which “highlights the extent to which Canadian Jewry has followed their Israeli brethren down the path of a moral abyss.”
Engler allows that “thousands of individual Jews have turned on Israel and some of the most committed opponents of genocidal Jewish supremacy are Jewish.” The original version of the published article (online until just a few days ago) concluded with the line: “If you oppose authoritarianism, racism and genocide say it loud and say it proud: Canada’s Jewish community must be weakened.” Apparently Engler was not so “proud” of calling to weaken the “Jewish community” after all, and he has rather quietly and without acknowledgment amended the line to read: “Canada’s Jewish Zionist institutions must be weakened.”
The third piece cited by Ben is a long “Twitter rant” from 11 June 2025, also reproduced on his website (“Media’s anti-Palestinian bias & Jewish sensitivies” [sic]). Here, Engler goes beyond talking about Jewish organizations and self-described Jewish publications like Canadian Jewish News to decrying the “ethnic/religious contribution” of Jews to the “anti-Palestinian character of Canada’s media” more broadly—especially news conglomerate Postmedia. The observation that the Zionism of the late media mogul Izzy Asper has found enduring expression in the editorial line of Postmedia’s outlets is hardly controversial, at least on the left. Zionism has served the foreign policy objectives of the Canadian ruling class of which Asper was a member and for which Postmedia expresses an important strain of bourgeois opinion. Engler’s argument, however, is not about the convergence of interests between a wing of Canadian capital and the Zionist project but about the “overrepresentation” of Jews in the media:
“A thorough analysis of Canadian media ownership would no doubt uncover other examples of Jewish Zionist owners contributing to anti-Palestinian bias. But ownership is but a small part of how Jewish organizations/power/sensitivities impact the media.
“Jews are overrepresented in positions of influence within Canada’s media.”
Engler complains that Jews take up proportionately too much space in the Globe and Mail’s editorial section and that TVO’s Steve Paikin, who hosted the English-language federal leaders’ debate, has “spotlighted his Jewishness.” Engler also cites the Financial Post’s Howard Levitt as an egregious example of “Jewish over representation” in Canada’s media.
This is an extremely odious argument. If the point is that Zionism is “overrepresented” in the editorials of Canadian media, then Engler should have simply said that. He could have cited the work of Jewish and many more non-Jewish journalists who have spouted Zionist propaganda in the service of Canadian foreign policy objectives. Instead, he blames the “ethnic/religious” identity of Jews and their supposed “overrepresentation” in the media for the pro-Zionist news coverage that Canadians consume on a daily basis. If that truly were the source of the problem, then the solution would, logically speaking, be to remove or at least reduce the number of Jews in the media. What might that look like?
Engler’s intemperate rant is obviously playing with the antisemitic trope that Jews control the media, and he is aware of it. He actually complains: “Anything that resembles an antisemitic trope, even if factual and relevant, cannot be discussed.” Engler’s approach is not to provide a class analysis and programmatic challenge to Zionism but to home in on the “ethnic/religious” identity of Jews. His post reiterates his identification of ordinary Jews with the official organizations that claim to represent them: “If you consider yourself Jewish it’s your responsibility to challenge your community’s shit.” Really? Marxists seek to break workers from nationalism, but we believe that guilting them through a liberal moralist equation with their own oppressors is not a winning strategy. Engler concludes his rant by letting the cat out of the bag: “How many Palestinians have to be killed before Martin Lukacs [of liberal news website, The Breach] stops seeking to exculpate Canada’s Jewish community from its responsibility in Israel’s genocide?” And here we have it stated plainly: Canada’s “Jewish community” is responsible for the genocide in Gaza.
Is all of this enough to conclude that Engler is an antisemite? If by “antisemite” one means a hater of Jews, the answer is probably no. But saying that Engler probably doesn’t hate Jews is to damn him with faint praise. He has, however, brought this upon himself. His writings and conduct reveal a passionate and well-informed but politically unserious “anti-imperialist” who is prone to provocative statements about Jews. He has previously been accused of antisemitism, and not merely by right-wing Zionists (which is to be expected). In fact, he has had to defend himself and even issue a statement apologizing for past comments (posted on his website in the “Controversies” section). After “condemn[ing] all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism,” Engler acknowledged:
“I regret minimizing the danger of anti-Semitism in Canada four years ago. In my anger at false accusations of anti-Jewishness leveled against internationalist minded critics of Israeli crimes I incorrectly downplayed the continued evil of anti-Semitism. The rise of neo-Nazi forces in recent years demonstrates I was mistaken.
“As for comments some people have interpreted as contributing to anti-Semitic tropes that was never my intention. In responding to claims by supporters of Israel of widespread anti-Semitism in Montreal and arguments that Jews in the city were an oppressed people I pointed out some demographic facts that undermine those arguments. When the charge of anti-Semitism is weaponized to undermine pro-Palestinian activism and the Left in general it is completely valid to look at social indicators of structural racism to determine the validity of claims of oppression. I recognize now that straddling the line of legitimate response to the weaponization of anti-Semitism and contributing to tropes is a difficult one to walk. I apologize to anyone who feels I crossed the line.”
It is unlikely that Engler is a dyed-in-the-wool antisemite. It is more likely that the source of his outbursts is a rad-lib, non-class framework that sees politics as simply the sum total of what individuals do—a framework susceptible to borrowing antisemitic tropes that conflict with the anti-oppression Engler may otherwise sincerely embrace.
Critical Support for Yves Engler?
What is Engler’s politics? Until just a few days ago, the banner on his professional website prominently displayed the Canadian flag (this has now been replaced with a campaign graphic). His campaign website states that Engler fights for “democratic socialism—a society rooted in economic justice, peace, democracy, and the empowerment of working people.” Socialism is defined by Engler as “economic democracy” based on “one person, one vote.” His “eco-socialist” perspective rejects “Capitalism’s need for endless consumption and profit maximization,” while he advocates “fully universal Pharmacare, dental care, child care, and a national affordable housing program to end homelessness.” These supportable reforms are pitched as policies that an NDP government could pass as laws (not as objects for working-class struggle that break from the confines of capitalism and bourgeois parliamentarism), while his foreign policy statement is pure liberal reformism:
“Yves wants to fulfill a longstanding NDP policy of withdrawing Canada from NATO and ending billion dollar arm sales to dictatorships worldwide. We must end Canada’s support for Israel and its genocide in Palestine, and promote trade agreements and relationships based on democracy and human rights.”
There are some radical flourishes at times, including his call for “democratic, workers’ control of critical sectors, including auto, banking, and public utilities, to ensure that public benefit, and not private profit, is central to Canada’s economy.” Yet on the whole, Engler’s campaign is confined to a reformist, left-nationalist perspective.
Does that rule out critical support to him? Not necessarily. For Marxists, the point of critical support is to advance the struggle to build a mass communist party by exposing reformist misleaders and winning their adherents to revolutionary socialism. The NDP is a bourgeois workers’ party, and while critical support is not required, it can be a useful tactic under certain circumstances. We saw no reason to apply it in the federal election earlier this year (see “Maple Leaf Imperialism,” 1917 no.49). Engler’s campaign to become leader of the NDP espouses politics to the left of the party’s leadership. But the question is whether this is about more than Yves Engler, whether there is a groundswell of support—i.e., rank-and-file leftists, inside and/or outside the NDP, who currently have illusions in Engler but who might be won over by Marxists seeking to intersect them. Engler claims that 600 people have signed up to volunteer for his campaign and that his campaign launch video received 100,000 impressions on Twitter. If there are indeed hundreds of people scrambling to volunteer their time for Engler’s campaign, that would be an indication of something real happening. So far, however, there appears to be little evidence for any significant movement. At this time, therefore, we see no reason to offer critical support to the Engler campaign.
We are not adverse to “getting our hands dirty” with practical organizing, and we look for opportunities to work with other leftists, based on our organizational capacity, political priorities and perspectives. Whether it is the Labour May Day Committee or the Toronto Coalition Against NATO, there is an ingrained tendency on the far left to seek shortcuts to political unity and larger influence by promoting “united fronts” for socialism that round off the edges of the revolutionary politics nominally espoused by the participants. The Engler campaign is yet another example of this. Socialist Action and others are not trying to intersect an already-existing movement in order to polarize it along class lines and gain a hearing for communist politics. They are actively building that movement from the ground up, including helping the candidate develop policies to make him seem more coherent and leftwing than he really is and (in the case of SA) by soliciting the political loose cannon in the first place. This is not exposing illusions but, insofar as anyone is paying attention, creating them. It is not the job of Marxists to build left reformist movements and then, perhaps, to try to win people from them. That is stagism, not clever tactics.